Search for: "Brooks v Lewin"
Results 21 - 31
of 31
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Apr 2020, 5:26 am
(See e.g., Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006] [speculation on future events insufficient to establish causation in malpractice action]; John P. [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 2:53 am
There is no evidence in the record to support plaintiffs’ expert accountant’s assumption that if DFS had taken the same actions against plaintiffs nine months earlier, plaintiffs would have undertaken the same remedial measures nine months earlier (see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734-735 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]). [read post]
24 May 2018, 3:55 am
(Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d at 50; LaRusso v Katz, 30 AD3d 240, 243 [1st Dept 2006]; Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005]; see Stackpole v Cohen, Ehrlich & Frankel, LLP, 82 AD3d 609, 610 [1st Dept 2011].) [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 4:57 am
To establish causation, a plaintiff must demonstrate that, but for the attorney’snegligence, she would have prevailed in the underlying matter, or would not have sustained any ascertainable damages ( Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [ pt Dept 2005]). [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 3:51 am
” (Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept2005] [citation omitted], Iv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006].) [read post]
5 Aug 2011, 2:11 am
In order to establish proximate cause, "plaintiff must demonstrate that 'but for' the attorney's negligence, plaintiff would either have prevailed in the matter at issue, or would not have sustained any 'ascertainable damages'" (id.; citing Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734, 800 N.Y.S.2d 695 [1st Dept 2005]). [read post]
22 Apr 2019, 4:47 am
(Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005].) [read post]
17 Jul 2020, 6:08 am
Moreover, plaintiffs’ allegation that “had Moncho been able to utilize his preferred choice of plan funder, the Lightstone Group, none of the injuries incurred as the result of Miller and Sprei’s acts would have occurred” (NYSCEF Doc No. 149, second amended verified complaint, ¶ 169) is too speculative (see Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734-735 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006] [“speculation on future events is insufficient to… [read post]
10 Aug 2011, 3:23 am
Brooks v. [read post]
24 May 2019, 4:36 am
However, “speculation on future events are insufficient to establish that the defendant lawyer’s malpractice, if any, was a proximate cause of any such loss” (Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734-735 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006] [citations omitted]). [read post]
15 Mar 2015, 11:51 am
” - Kurt Lewin “Having a fine old name really has been enough for me. [read post]
